On 11/22/2016 11:05 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 22.11.16 at 16:30, <boris.ostrov...@oracle.com> wrote:
On 11/22/2016 10:01 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
+ const static uint8_t pm1a_mask[4] = {ACPI_BITMASK_GLOBAL_LOCK_STATUS,
0,
+ ACPI_BITMASK_GLOBAL_LOCK_ENABLE,
0};
+ const static uint8_t gpe0_mask[4] = {1U << XEN_GPE0_CPUHP_BIT, 0,
+ 1U << XEN_GPE0_CPUHP_BIT, 0};
Hmm, funny, in someone else's patch I've recently seen the same.
Can we please stick to the more standard "storage type first"
ordering of declaration elements. After all const modifies the type,
and hence better stays together with it.
And then I'd like to have an explanation (in the commit message)
about the choice of the values for pm1a_mask.
Sure (Lock status/enable is required)
And nothing else is? And there's no other implementation
required for the lock bit?
The other part is the global lock itself, which is part of the FACS that
we allocate in build.c
-boris
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
